From: Schulz, Dave (DSchulz@dpsciences.com)
Date: Fri Jan 13 2006 - 15:09:54 GMT-3
Chris -
I understand everything except the R1-R2 transfer...how does the RP
mapping get through to R1 if it needs to see the 40 group, and cannot
get it via dense mode?
Dave Schulz
Email: dschulz@dpsciences.com <mailto:dschulz@dpsciences.com%20>
________________________________
From: Chris Lewis [mailto:chrlewiscsco@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 12:49 PM
To: Prio Utomo
Cc: Schulz, Dave; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Confuse between Sparse & Dense
I had a fairly lengthy thread on this a month or two back.
Basically every Cisco device will send out an IGMP report to .40, it is
a host receiver for that group. It doesn't have to be, but that is the
way the code is written.
So you could have the setup below work and have R1 get RP information
with just sparse mode only enabled on the interface and without autorp
listener
R1----R2----R3
R1 to R2 is sparse only, R2 to R3 is dense. If R3 is the RP, R1 will
learn about it as it sends an IGMP membership report to R2, and R2 can
then use dense to complete the information transfer.
That's a summary of the longer thread.
Chris
On 1/13/06, Prio Utomo <rionaldi@gmail.com> wrote:
For the AutoRP, the 39 and 40 always send to dense mode, although I
specify
interface as sparse? or I must use sparse-dense or ip pim
autorp-listener?
maybe you can help, why directed connected sparse can connect without
any RP
? I test in the lab it works.. configure all interface with sparse
LB0---R1---S0/0-------s0/0-R2-LB0
R2LB0 I join let say ip igmp join 239.1.1.1, I can ping this address
from R1
without any static RP or autorp, when the mroute, one of the entry is
224.0.1.40.. do not where this multicsat came from.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Schulz, Dave" <DSchulz@dpsciences.com>
To: "Prio Utomo" < rionaldi@gmail.com <mailto:rionaldi@gmail.com> >;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:18 PM
Subject: RE: Confuse between Sparse & Dense
> Rionaldi -
>
> RPs are only needed in Sparse mode. The first example is a static RP,
> which you are limited it being the RP for specific groups defined by
> your ACL. Also, it is my understanding that you do not want to use
the
> deny statement in for these ACL, since multicast has issues (some of
the
> experts to speak to why that is better than I). I just know that
there
> are issues with this and using the filter on the mapping agent.
>
> The second is an auto-RP, which will take precedence over the
statically
> configured RP. The 39 and 40 are always sent dense mode.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
>
> Dave Schulz,
> Email: dschulz@dpsciences.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto: nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> Prio Utomo
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 7:44 AM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Confuse between Sparse & Dense
>
> I read somewhere that multicast traffic transmission can be determined
> as
> sparse or dense not by what the interface configuration is whether ip
> pim
> sparse, ip pim dense, or ip pim sparse-dense.... but whether they can
> find
> RP or not, if can they will be sparse if not it will be dense...
correct
> me
> if I am wrong.
>
> I would like to know the meaning of this command then:
>
> ip pim rp-add x.x.x.x 12
>
> access-list 12 permit 239.1.1.1 ------> sparse ?
> access-list 12 deny 239.2.2.2 ------> sparse ?
> access-list 12 deny 224.0.1.39 ------> dense?
> access-list 12 deny 224.0.1.40 ------> dense?
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> ip pim send-rp-announce Loopback0 scope 10 group-list 45
> ip pim send-rp-discovery scope 10
>
> access-list 45 permit 224.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 ------> sparse ?
> access-list 45 permit 227.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 ------> sparse ?
> access-list 45 deny 225.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 ------> dense?
>
>
>
> Regards,
> rionaldi
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Feb 01 2006 - 07:45:49 GMT-3